Fiction and politics:

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

There is to me an underexplored potential issue in terms of politics, namely the impact that fiction can and does have on it.

I'm referring to here not only such influential novels as What Is to Be Done, Nineteen-Eighty-Four, Brave New World, and We here but also to the more cheesy type of fiction like say, superhero comics and superheroes. To me the most obvious example to turn to is this one:

http://www.amazon.com/Superman-versus-Klux-Klan-Superhero/dp/1426309155

In the post-WWII era, a radio version of Superman featured a thinly-disguised variant of the KKK as villains on the show. By showcasing the goofy names and ridiculous aspects of the KKK, it was a major reason that the Cold War witnessed a bottoming out of the pre-WWII variety of the Klan. Thus you can actually argue that Superman defeated the KKK in the real world, but in a practical sense this is because when terms like "Exalted Cyclops" and "Grand Dragon" are public knowledge the meeting of grown men in bedsheets starts sounding like a D & D convention and nobody wants to admit that they had such terms applied to them.

This certainly is a good example, but for a more evil one, there's the most obvious one to turn to of them all:

http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org/holoprelude/judsuss.html

That one being Jud Suss, a film which embodied Nazi extremism against Jews, and represents the kind of dangerous uses fiction can have when it's turned to the purpose of actually stirring up and embodying hatrred, as opposed to doing good things. Evidently the Gestapo and the SD ran surveys of the impact this film had on Germans and it proved to be an impact that was quite major, moreso I think than they really expected.



So with these two examples, one positve and one negative, comes a very important question. How much responsibiliity, if any, do authors have for works that might have political overtones? What of cases where these overtones are either not intended or completely the opposite result of the actual intent (like all the fanboys of V for Vendetta that miss that Alan Moore saw the character as a Very Bad ManTM)? To me I think that such responsibility is much higher where the work itself is actually intended to be political, as in this case the fiction, be it radio, film, novel, Youtube, or what have you, is focused on political matters. As such viewing it and the author from political lenses is entirely justfiable.

But where this is actually unintentional or not the purpose of the original story, I'll be perfectly blunt and say that I think it depends on whether I agree with the message in the story or not as to how strongly I'd uphold the principle that it should matter rather less. The more I agree with the message, the less I'd say anything about it, the less I agree with it, I'd have rather more to say and quite a bit of it rather less positive.

What do you guys think?

Comments

[mutive.livejournal.com]

Over on Oh John Ringo No! (http://hradzka.livejournal.com/194753.html?thread=760769#t760769), (well worth the read for reasons other than politics) the author discusses how all stories are biased somewhat (will agree), but that some show a more overt bias than others, and discusses how that often has to do with political leaning. (Essentially, liberals tend to be dominate writing circles, so tend to write less overt messages as they assume that their readers already agree with them, while conservatives tend to be more overt). I found the idea interesting (and am inclined to agree).

I personally don't tend to read anything that reads like propaganda. With that said, some bias is going to slip through almost inevitably. (Which in my mind, is a good reason to know a little about the author in certain circumstances, especially if you're trying to find the message/understand the bias.) And I can read and enjoy things that have a distinct bias, even if I hold the opposing opinion, provided that the argument is well constructed. (Certain pieces by Megan Lindholm/Robin Hobb come to mind. (http://www.freebooks2u.net/ScienceFiction/Cut.html) Although if you click on link, be warned that the story is rather graphic...) I also find it hilarious when fanboys/girls manage to completely misinterpret the message...

[dv8nation.livejournal.com]

What people do after they read a book is on them. The author isn't responsible for the actions of others. Simple as that.

[root-fu.livejournal.com]

What you said applies especially to books like the bible & koran.

[rimpala.livejournal.com]

Well of course, the likes of Moses and Issac couldn't have predicted the vast amount of stupid shit people do in the name of their writings.

In my opinion if one kills in the name of god, god isn't responcible, they are.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

> the likes of Moses and Issac couldn't have predicted the vast amount of stupid shit people do in the name of their writings.

DQ!

[dwer.livejournal.com]

why should they be more or less responsible than other works of fiction?

[root-fu.livejournal.com]

A mere "lack of belief in theism" doesn't allow for a person labeling the beliefs of others as "fiction" for one.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

How are holy books anything other than fiction to non-believers? How else would they think of them?

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

We're required to treat any hypothesis that's not utterly impossible as probably true, at least according to root_fu.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

I think you will find that you're mistaken about that one. But I didn't call your belief a fiction, simply two particular books.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

So if I hold to the belief that Zeus and Odin are real and monkeying around with human beings based solely on reading Marvel Comics then anyone who bashes that belief should be told to STFU because it's a religious belief? Not all beliefs are equally worthy of respect.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

Some are worthier because they've been written in a book that has been taught upon us for centuries, yep.

[rimpala.livejournal.com]

This

[rimpala.livejournal.com]

Granted, in the case of propaganda, the author's responcibility is only that of spreading hatered if that is their intention. A person's - or at least a free-thinking adult's - responcibility though is to think for themself, and certainly not let someone influence them to violence.

[rimpala.livejournal.com]

instantly reminded of both "Wag the Dog" and the show 24, the former being a temporary often-misused buzzword sometime during the Clinton administration, the later a reference used in actual defence of waterboarding.

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

How much responsibiliity, if any, do authors have for works that might have political overtones

In The End of the World News, Anthony Burgess posited a future with only two movies, grabbed by a passenger just as the space ark was leaving earth. The conclusion? The children thought the movies (docudramas, one about Freud, one about Marx) were silly. They wondered why people made such things as movies.

Therefore, I don't think we can or should judge the intentions of the makers except as a warning to others. As you point out with V, the intentions can skew. Consider also the 1969 CBS pilot by Norman Lear called And Justice for All, where a racist Archie Justice rails against Pollacks only to have his daughter marry one. It was later released as All In The Family, and Archie's name turned to Bunker. The problem? Conservatives loved Archie. They missed the less-than-subtle satire and derision against racists Lear worked into the script completely.

So here might be where your "viewing it and the author from political lenses is entirely justfiable" falls apart. Sure, people put out political fiction. The Jungle, anyone? 1984? Where good political fiction and bad drift apart from each other is the quality of the production. The Jungle is a gripping yarn . . . until the last four chapters. There it becomes a socialist screed and lost me, if not everyone I know (except for the socialists). His conclusions are just silly. That's why we got the FDA and home mortgage reform instead of a revolution of the proletariat.

Intentions matter, yes, but not as much as actions.